Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Massachusetts newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (August 4, 2020, 9:30 PM EDT) -- A group of tenant advocacy groups will not be able to intervene in a legal challenge to Massachusetts' eviction moratorium, a federal judge ruled from the bench on Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf denied a request from City Life/Vida Urbana, the Chelsea Collaborative, Lynn United for Change and Springfield No One Leaves to intervene in the case, saying lawyers from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office would be adequate to defend the legislature's moratorium.
"I find the attorney general is willing and able to energetically and effectively and more than adequately defend the constitutionality of the moratorium," Judge Wolf said. "The proposed amici don't have additional claims or defenses. The participation of the proposed intervenor will complicate and possibly delay proceedings in which time is of the essence."
Judge Wolf criticized the groups for not filing pleadings alongside their motion to intervene, but he left open the possibility that they could refile a motion to intervene if they could point to an area where the state isn't adequately defending the law.
The judge said if he opened the door to these four groups, he'd have to open the door to others.
"This is a case that badly needs to be expedited," Judge Wolf said, saying the other parties would mean more briefs to read, more questions for witnesses, more arguments at motion hearings.
The groups, represented by Joseph Michalakes of Greater Boston Legal Services, wanted to be able to file briefs and argue before the court as to why the moratorium must be upheld, just as it did last week in a parallel state court case involving the same plaintiffs.
Challenged as to whether the groups think the attorney general's office can't adequately defend the law, Michalakes responded that that wasn't the standard the court should look at.
"What we are saying is the record can and will be more complete with our clients' experience and perspectives," Michalakes said.
The challenge to the April eviction moratorium law landed in federal court after landlords Linda Smith and Mitchell Matorin filed the federal claims as part of an emergency appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court. Then the landlords excised the federal claims from the state case and put them into the federal lawsuit, albeit with a different plaintiff, Marie Baptiste, along with Matorin.
A motion for a preliminary injunction to block the law was argued in the Suffolk County Superior Court last week and hasn't been ruled on.
The landlords are represented by Richard D. Vetstein of Vetstein Law Group PC and Jordana R. Roubicek.
The state government is represented by Jennifer Greaney of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General.
The amici are represented by Joseph Michalakes of Greater Boston Legal Services.
The case is Baptiste et al. v. Massachusetts et al., case number 1:20-cv-11335, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The state case is Matorin et al. v. Sullivan et al., case number 2084cv01334, in the Suffolk County Superior Court for Massachusetts.
--Editing by Brian Baresch.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
